Genesis 1 as a model for holiness

[Roland Hearn]

I am currently enjoying the unmitigated pleasure of sitting in a class titled “The Bible: fact or fiction” presented by an ordained Lutheran pastor who is on the faculty of the University of Queensland that I am currently attending. His presentation of Genesis suggested that the theme of Genesis 1 is the foundations of the creation of Israel. He suggested that the God of Israel is a God that brings order out of chaos. It is the nature of God to reveal Himself in order. The creation story is not a story of the steps of creation but of the ideal of separation. Israel’s ultimate sense of self was that God had separated them out to reveal Himself. At each stage creation is an ordering of separating: light from dark, dry land from sea, the heavens above from the heavens below. The ultimate act of separation is the creation of the seventh day rest: the sacred from the profane.



As we clearly understand holiness as the separation of the individual from sin and the creation of the life that glorifies God out of the life that is self oriented does this presentation not present a fertile ground for the presentation of the creation narrative.

[Randy Wise]

I am currently enjoying the unmitigated pleasure of sitting in a class titled “The Bible: fact or fiction” presented by an ordained Lutheran pastor who is on the faculty of the University of Queensland that I am currently attending. His presentation of Genesis suggested that the theme of Genesis 1 is the foundations of the creation of Israel. He suggested that the God of Israel is a God that brings order out of chaos. It is the nature of God to reveal Himself in order. The creation story is not a story of the steps of creation but of the ideal of separation. Israel’s ultimate sense of self was that God had separated them out to reveal Himself. At each stage creation is an ordering of separating: light from dark, dry land from sea, the heavens above from the heavens below. The ultimate act of separation is the creation of the seventh day rest: the sacred from the profane.



As we clearly understand holiness as the separation of the individual from sin and the creation of the life that glorifies God out of the life that is self oriented does this presentation not present a fertile ground for the presentation of the creation narrative.

My perfection training is based on Jesus's examples as He taught and acted. We in that have seen the Father. I do believe God works for the good of those that love Him. (Brings good even from evil intent) I believe God also chose Abram out of mankind to raise up a people (a start) to eventually train/teach the rest of the world in the same manner. Jesus, as a Jew, stated such a view when He stated salvation comes from the Jews. God also foretold "a light to the gentiles" and also spoke of a day when other people (gentiles) would also being His own as well. (One family) The source of the salvation was of course God Himself.

I believe the whole of scripture shows God as Holy and righteous and Jesus taught us to be like our Heavenly Father.

Randy

[Dennis Bratcher]

I am currently enjoying the unmitigated pleasure of sitting in a class titled “The Bible: fact or fiction” presented by an ordained Lutheran pastor who is on the faculty of the University of Queensland that I am currently attending. His presentation of Genesis suggested that the theme of Genesis 1 is the foundations of the creation of Israel. He suggested that the God of Israel is a God that brings order out of chaos. It is the nature of God to reveal Himself in order. The creation story is not a story of the steps of creation but of the ideal of separation. Israel’s ultimate sense of self was that God had separated them out to reveal Himself. At each stage creation is an ordering of separating: light from dark, dry land from sea, the heavens above from the heavens below. The ultimate act of separation is the creation of the seventh day rest: the sacred from the profane.

As we clearly understand holiness as the separation of the individual from sin and the creation of the life that glorifies God out of the life that is self oriented does this presentation not present a fertile ground for the presentation of the creation narrative.

A few thoughts (probably too many!). I think he is on the right track in noting that the focus of the Genesis narratives in context is not really about origins, but about order. The story is not about the creation but about the creator and his relationship with humanity. It is theology done in story. Against the background of ancient near eastern culture, the idea of order was a powerful counter to the prevalent myths in which chaos dominated and the gods were capricious and flawed. Israelite writers and prophets used the idea of order to talk about God, and conversely chaos and disorder were the marks of human sin and failure (the flood story, for example, or Isaiah's use of chaos to talk about sin: 24:10, 45:18-19, etc.).

However, within the Genesis narrative the separation is not really related to the ideas of clean and unclean, or sacred and profane. Those are priestly categories and are much different conceptual models for talking about sin. In those categories sin brings pollution to that which is sacred (Haggai 2 is a good example of this mode of thinking).

I think that in the Genesis narratives the idea is not so much separation as it is boundaries. It is a way to talk about God's purposes for humanity, to live within the boundaries that define God's created order. For example, Psalm 104:6-9 and Job 26:10 use the language of boundary against the background of the order imagery in Genesis.

In this sense, the Genesis narrative is not about holiness but about faithfulness to God more generally. Sin, in the Eden story, is crossing the boundary of the forbidden, which is a way to talk about rejecting God's purpose. It is not a legal boundary, as we tend to assume, but an "order" boundary. That is, when that boundary is violated, it returns disorder or chaos to the world precisely because it violates God's purpose for the world and humanity. Such is the consequence of sin, as Genesis 4-11 portrays graphically, especially in the return of chaos in the imagery of water in Genesis 6.

On the whole, this is a much better way to conceptualize sin. Rather than violating a law, sin violates the way the world works and introduces an element of disorder that begins to destroy what was once good. Anyone who has done much counseling will immediately recognize that reality.

The priestly model has more complicated origins, but says something very similar in different imagery. Sin brings a contamination that must be cleansed or purified. The sacrifices and cleansing rituals were a way to personify in actions the process of repentance and correction. Removal of the contamination was visualized in the ritual. The problem with a priestly or legal approach is, as Jesus pointed out, that it dealt only with violation and could not deal with cause. As Psalm 51 concludes, that can only come from God's action in creating a clean heart that deals with cause. Jeremiah's heart language comes close to saying the same thing.

Genesis 1-3 is one of the best biblical passages for understanding the nature of sin, even though the word is never used in the narrative. But I don't think it is a good source for talking about holiness, as least not in Wesleyan terms of living as the people of God. For that, in the OT, I think Psalm 51 is far better (coming to the recognition that our human "default" settings need to be changed), as well as some of the ethical passages of the prophets (for example, Micah 6:6-8). In addition, a proper understanding of the concept of torah, not in terms of law but in terms of "instruction" connected with the imagery of boundary and the created order (torah as instructions for how to live in God's world without creating chaos), might also be helpful. Of course, all of that needs to be connected with the presence of God imagery in both Testaments, especially the Holy Spirit in the NT.

In some limited sense, the priestly language of sacred and profane can be used to talk about holiness, using the corresponding imagery of cleansing. But it has potential pifalls. Historically, it has been used to support perfectionist tendencies with an excessive emphasis on a "one time" action (the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" language) rather than an emphasis on ongoing relationship and growth expressed in living. So personally, I think the prophetic language of faithfulness from the heart or the Deuteronomic language of "listen" and "keep" provide better theological paradigms from the OT than priestly metaphors, which too easily collapse into legal thinking. Both the OT prophets and Jesus challenged that tendency.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I've heard Scott Daniels portray this notion beautifully time and again in his sermons. He probably does it about once every two months or so. He did it just about a month ago. I've isolated the clip from the Feb 5th sermon on PazNaz's website (Scott, if you happen to be reading and this isn't okay, just let me know and I'll take it down). It's about six minutes long:

Scott Daniels - Separation in Genesis 1

In this clip, he's using Genesis 1 to help complement the reception of the breath/Spirit at Pentecost, so he doesn't develop it as much as I've heard him in the past (particularly the tohu-bohu aspect of it), but it fleshes out a bit what you're saying. He also doesn't delve into the implications of qadash/qodesh ("to set apart" & "to make holy"/"separateness" & "holiness"). Even though I'm not sure those words are there in Genesis 1, the connections/implications for Old Testament holiness certainly are.

[Roland Hearn]

Dennis,
I did not at all get the sense that he was offering the idea of holiness as a complete idea in Genesis 1 and the words the "sacred from the profane" was actually my editorial comment on what he was saying. His actual point was the final act of creation was not the making of man but the making of the sabbath which he identified as the last act of separation. It was my mind that leaped to the Hebrews passage that links Sabbath rest with holiness. I like very much what you say I just don't think I am prepared to abandon the train of thougth when you consider that character of God as holy and the Sabbath rest being the recognition of that holiness.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis,
I did not at all get the sense that he was offering the idea of holiness as a complete idea in Genesis 1 and the words the "sacred from the profane" was actually my editorial comment on what he was saying. His actual point was the final act of creation was not the making of man but the making of the sabbath which he identified as the last act of separation. It was my mind that leaped to the Hebrews passage that links Sabbath rest with holiness. I like very much what you say I just don't think I am prepared to abandon the train of thougth when you consider that character of God as holy and the Sabbath rest being the recognition of that holiness.

I understand. That may be a profitable line of thought and I would be interested to see where it goes.

My hesitancy, besides what I already said, is that in the Genesis narratives Sabbath is not directly connected either with the idea of separation or with the holiness of God. It is connected with the idea of rest, a theological theme that emerges in Joshua and Judges (cf. Exod 20:8-11). As such, Sabbath, in Genesis, is related to God as Creator, a worshipful response to that recognition of God. It is the day that is holy, following the OT idea of sacred time (note Exod 31:13-17).

Throughout the torah traditions, Sabbath continues to be related to the idea of rest (Exod. 16:23-30, 20:8-11, 35:2, Lev 16:31, 23:3, etc.). This idea of the sacredness of the seventh day as a day of rest extends, for example, to the seventh day of Passover (Exod. 12:15-17, Num 28:25), the seventh year for fallowing land (Lev 25:4), and the seven-times-seven year, the beginning of the 50th Year of Jubilee (Lev 25:8-54). In Deuteronomy, Sabbath is connected, not to creation, but to the exodus as a worshipful response to God's actions as deliverer (Deut. 5:12-15). This likely reflects the same idea of God as Creator, only more specifically as creator of a people.

So for me, while the idea of connecting Sabbath with God's holiness and the idea of separation would be appealing as a concept within which to frame holiness, I just don’t see that in the OT biblical texts (Hebrews would have to be interpreted in its own context, although Heb. 4 uses the OT idea of Sabbath rest).

What is clear is that that OT Sabbath was conceptualized within the framework of sacred time. In that sense, there is a dimension of separation involved since the OT idea of sacredness involves the priestly distinction between sacred and profane or common. But that has more to do with worship within a conceptual model than with holiness broadly understood, and is, I think, a much different concept than the "dividing" that occurs in Genesis 1.

Still, in a derived sense, as I said earlier, we can legitimately talk about Wesleyan holiness in those priestly categories of separation. But for me, they are much too limited and require too much background understanding to be a viable vehicle for talking about holiness today, without risking the kinds of misunderstandings that have plagued the holiness tradition in the past (as one example, the "come outer" idea of separation in which the AHM would "Christianize Christianity" proved to be very divisive and destructive).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Roland Hearn]

Dennis,
I actually would love the opportunity, not likely to happen in the short term, to sit with you and discuss this a little further. I understand that NT uses of old testament passages often reflected a much looser use of interpretation then we would be comfortable with and hence the Hebrews passage is more of an overlay then a direct reflection of an ingrained understanding -which I think again reflects our basis for biblical inspiration being a much stronger one than the literalist verbal inspiration - however the use therefore does give some room for consideration. I know I'm getting into deep water way over my head with you on this but I'm just thinking through an idea. The holiness of God is a central identifying characteristic of the nature of God as is love and for me they are so deeply intertwined as to be inseparable when we speak of God. Is it fair to consider the rest that God took from creation more in the sense of the recognition of the completion of His creation rather than the ceasing of all activity? The fact that the day is considered holy suggests to me the reflection of the character of God. The day says something about the nature of God. This then does bring me back to the Hebrews passage when it says that there "remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." This Sabbath rest was different from the day of the week or the rest of arriving in the promised land it is something more deeply linked to the character of God and the writer in Hebrews was saying something of significance when he used that idea.